Gemara's answer: The Gemara answered that we discuss another's land. The one who detached does not benefit at all;

In any case it is forbidden l'Chatchilah, like I will explain below, just he is not Chayav Chatas.

Inference: In his own land, he is Chayav Chatas;

Explanation: Even though he did not intend to improve the land, he is liable because it is a Pesik Reishei, and he benefits;

Distinction: This is unlike one who gathered coals to warm himself through them, and they flared up on their own, which is Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah;

There, R. Shimon exempts, for he does not benefit at all from this burning. Even without the extra burning, he has enough coals to warm himself.

If so, clearly he does not intend to burn.

However, in the case in Shabbos 103a, since he benefits, we can testify (i.e. it is certain) that he intends to improve.

Question: Our Sugya connotes that Davar she'Eino Miskaven, even if it is a Pesik Reishei, is not mid'Oraisa regarding Shabbos according to R. Yehudah;

You must say that Tziruf of Asasiyos is a Pesik Reishei, since we challenged it from the case of Tzara'as [on the foreskin]. Even so, we say that it is mid'Rabanan.

In Kerisus, R. Yehudah is Mechayev one who scoops coals with intent to extinguish the top coals, and bottom coals flared up, even though he did not intend for them to flare up!

Answer: Tziruf of Asasiyos is not a Pesik Reishei.

Note: Above, Tosfos proved oppositely from the question from Tzara'as. He now rejects the proof.

Even so, the question [from Tzara'as] was a proper question, for Abaye answered "it is needed only according to R. Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven."

Inference: (Abaye holds that) he (R. Yehudah) does not distinguish between intent and without intent.

If he distinguished (and it is only for a Pesik Reishei), it could be even like R. Shimon!

Implied question: Ultimately, Abaye retracted [and agreed that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, so the Mishnah need not be R. Shimon], like it connotes in Shabbos 133b. (If so, how can we learn from what he said initially?)

Answer: In any case, from his initial answer [that we need the verse according to R. Yehudah], we infer that R. Yehudah forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven mid'Oraisa, even if it is not a Pesik Reishei.

The Aruch's opinion: The Aruch explains that in Shabbos, we answered that he [detached] in another's land. Since he does not benefit at all, it is permitted even l'Chatchilah.

Implied question: It is a Pesik Reishei, and we said that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei!

Answer: That is only regarding something he benefits from, e.g. in his land, or cutting Tzara'as off his son's foreskin, which he benefits from.

Application: Due to this, the Aruch permitted to take [liquid] on Shabbos from a spigot wrapped with flax;

Implied question: He squeezes, and it is a Pesik Reishei!

Answer: Since he does not benefit from the squeezing, for the liquid goes to waste, it is permitted.

Rebuttal (Tosfos): There is no proof from improving another's land that it is permitted l'Chatchilah;

There, we discuss Chiyuv Chatas, that he is exempt. However, one can say that it is forbidden l'Chatchilah!

Proof #2 (Aruch, for himself): In Shabbos 133b, we asked about how Abaye explains what R. Shimon learns from "Basar", and answered that it permits when the father intends to cut his son's Tzara'as [during Milah];

Citation (133b): If someone else can circumcise, he [and not the father] should do it, like Reish Lakish taught (that if one can fulfill an Aseh without transgressing a Lav, he must. If not, the Aseh overrides the Lav.

The Gemara answered that there is no one else to circumcise. However, if there were someone else, he would be permitted l'Chatchilah!

Inference: R. Shimon permits a Pesik Reishei l'Chatchilah when he does not benefit from it.

Objection #1 (Tosfos): Abaye said that R. Shimon establishes the verse to discuss when the father intends... before he heard from Rava that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, like we conclude there;

After he heard it, he agreed to it. This is why we asked how Abaye [before he retracted] explained R. Shimon, since R. Shimon argues even about a Pesik Reishei.

If so, a Pesik Reishei is no different than other cases of Davar she'Eino Miskaven. What will he learn from "Besar"?

However, once Abaye concluded that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, the father is no different than anyone else.

Objection #2 (Tosfos): What is the proof from there? Perhaps there mid'Oraisa it is permitted, but mid'Rabanan it is forbidden!

Answer: However, perhaps this is his proof. Since for other Isurim, which do not require Meleches Machsheves, the Torah permits, there is no reason to forbid regarding Shabbos [which requires Meleches Machsheves] even mid'Rabanan;

Surely, if for other Isurim it is forbidden mid'Oraisa, for they do not require Meleches Machsheves, it would be proper to decree about Shabbos mid'Rabanan;

We would equate it to other Isurim, even though mid'Oraisa it is permitted, due to Meleches Machsheves;

Objection: However, since I explained that Abaye retracted, and holds that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, and the Torah forbids cutting the Tzara'as even if he does not intend...

If so, on Shabbos it is forbidden l'Chatchilah, whether through the father or through another.

Objection #3: This is difficult for the Aruch, for the Gemara asked only how Abaye explains how R. Shimon expounds Besar;

According to Rava, who holds that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, the father is no different than anyone else.

Since he holds that on Shabbos a Pesik Reishei is forbidden mid'Rabanan, even though it is permitted mid'Oraisa due to Meleches Machsheves, this implies that for other Isurim, he forbids mid'Oraisa.

Proof #3 (Aruch, for himself): In Shabbos (117a), the Gemara says that [when Erev Pesach is on Shabbos,] one may flay [Korban Pesach totally] in thin strips;

Even though R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, since he does not benefit from it, it is permitted!

Rebuttal #1 (Tosfos): Rashi explained there that it is not a Melachah, for it is not the normal way to flay.

Rebuttal #2 (Tosfos): We cancerned say that he flays in such small pieces that no one is big enough to make an amulet. Therefore, it is not considered hide, and this is not flaying.

Proof #4 (Aruch, for himself): In Sukah (33a), we say that one may not diminish the berries on a myrtle branch [so there will not less berries than leaves, to be Machshir it for the Mitzvah] on Yom Tov. R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon permits;

The Gemara asked that he fixes a Kli, and answered that he takes them to eat, and Davar she'Eino Miskaven is permitted.

The Gemara asked that R. Shimon agrees about a Pesik Reishei, and answered that he has another myrtle branch;

Since he does not benefit from this, it is permitted, even though it is like a Pesik Reishei.

Suggestion: Since he has another myrtle branch, this is not Tikun, since he does not fix it for the Mitzvah! (If so, this is no proof.)

Rejection: If so, what forced the Gemara to say that R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds like his father, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven?

He could hold even like R. Yehudah for this reason (it is not Tikun)!

Rejection (of proof - Tosfos): Even if he intends for the Tikun, it is forbidden only mid'Rabanan, for diminishing berries does not appear like such a Tikun to be considered Tikun mid'Oraisa;

Therefore, Chachamim did not decree, since he does not benefit.

Support (for Aruch): In Menachos 91b, we say that one who volunteers wine brings it and sprinkles it on the fire [on the Mizbe'ach];

The Gemara asked that he extinguishes, and established it like R. Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven. (One may never extinguish the fire on the Mizbe'ach, even partially.)

Even though it is a Pesik Reishei, for one cannot sprinkle on the fire without extinguishing, R. Shimon permits, since he does not benefit from this.

Question #1 (against Aruch): One who pierces an abscess to remove the pus is exempt, but it would be forbidden, if not due to pain, even though he does not benefit at all [from the opening], and he does not intend to build the opening at all!

Question #2: We permit moving a hand needle [on Shabbos] to remove a thorn [stuck in the skin];

In Sanhedrin (85a), we explain that this is like R. Shimon, who exempts Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah;

It is permitted only due to pain. If not, it would be forbidden, even though he does not intend to make a wound, only to remove the thorn!

Conclusion: Based on this, we must resolve the Gemara in Menachos, and say that it is not a Pesik Reishei;

Explanation: He sprinkles fine drops. Alternatively, he sprinkles on limbs [on the fire. Either way,] it is possible that they will not extinguish the fire.

Explanation (Aruch): Some Chachamim explain that he dug a tunnel under the Kodesh, until he was able to see Avodas Kohen Gadol;

Kohanim sensed the tunnel and found him, and called the chamber on his name.

Question #1: Why doesn't it say "eight Maneh", like the Reisha says "12 Maneh"?

Question #2: Regarding R. Meir's opinion, why doesn't it say that [in all] they are 20 Maneh, like it says in the Seifa, regarding Chachamim's opinion, that there 30 Maneh in all]?

Answer (to Question #2): Because the Reisha did not teach both of them in Manos, therefore the Seifa [of the Reisha] did not teach the sum, not in Manos and not in Zuz;

However, it is astounding why the Reisha did not teach both of them in Manos.

Suggestion: The 800 Zuz are common (money, i.e. not pure silver), like in Kesuvos 64b;

One must give to his wife each year clothing worth 50 Zuz. We explain there that this is common money, which is worth an eighth of Tzuri coins (which are pure silver).

Also in Kesuvos 67a, we say that one who marries off an orphan may not give to her less than 50 Zuz (of common money);

Rejection #1: If it is 800 common Zuz, the Tana could have taught "Hindu'in of one Maneh [for the second clothing], which is 13 Manos in all"!

Rejection #2: Presumably, it is Tzuri Zuzim, for then the first clothing is only a third [of its own value] more than the latter clothing, similar to Rabanan.

Answer: Perhaps the Tana did not say "Shemoneh Maneh", for these words do not flow smoothly.

Explanation: It seems that one of them is needed l'Gufei (for the law itself, that they are linen), and one "Bad" is like Levad (alone), to teach that he does not wear the gold garments with them, like he wears the entire year;

Explanation #1: The third "Bad" teaches that they should be better than linen [garments] of the entire year;

The fourth teaches that the ones he wears the first time should be better than those he wears the second time;

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the third and fourth are expounded to teach [that they are made from] the choicest linen.

Assertion: This is even according to Rabanan of R. Yosi (Bava Metzi'a 118a), who hold that people who guard Sefichin (things that grow by themselves) in Shevi'is (for the sake of the Omer and Shtei ha'Lechem) are paid from Terumas ha'Lishkah (half-Shekalim given to buy Korbanos Tzibur);

R. Yosi says that even one who wants to volunteer [and guard] for free may do so;

The Gemara says that they argue about concern lest one not give over to the Tzibur properly. Rabanan are concerned;

Here they agree. Anan Sahadei (it is so certain that we can testify) that the Kohen Gadol gives over properly, for he is a Gadol in Torah and knows that one must give over properly.

Note: Maharsham cites Tosfos (13b DH Ela), who says that the Kohen Gadol is zealous. However, the Mishnah (18b) says that the Kohen Gadol was not always a Chacham. Sometimes he could not understand and hear Devar Halachah (Rashi DH v'Im)! Si'ach Yitzchak says that they would teach him that he must give it over properly.

Also, since all Kevod Kehunah is his, he gives it over properly, amidst the dearness that he serves in it.

Support: Also Ben Buchri, who says (Menachos 21b) that a Kohen who gives Machatzis ha'Shekel does not sin [holds like this reasoning].

Citation (21b) Question: Since l'Chatchilah he is not obligated to give, when he gives (and the Tzibur buys an animal from his money), this is Chulin b'Azarah!

Citation (cont.) Answer: He donates his half-Shekel to the Tzibur.

Assertion: We can say that even if he holds like Rabanan in Bava Metzi'a 118a, Rabanan could agree [that a Kohen may give a half-Shekel];

Since all Yisrael bring Shekalim, even though Kohanim are exempt, they give to the Tzibur properly.

Also, the entire abundance of Korbanos that comes from the Shekalim is for Kohanim, therefore they give it over well.

Note: Only a small portion of Korbanos Tzibur are eaten (e.g. Chata'os of the Mo'adim, Lechem ha'Panim...) Most are Olos. However, Kohanim get the skin even from Olos, and they get the Mitzvah of offering them, and it richens.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi says that the first time he said "Ana Hash-m", and the second time he said Ana ba'Shem Kaper Na...